ML20058B479
| ML20058B479 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 10/18/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058B471 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010300227 | |
| Download: ML20058B479 (4) | |
Text
.
L
-3 s ** " 49 UNITED STATES
. Ij>.1 i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
%, *~...]l WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 t
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF HUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION j
RELATED TO AMENOMENT NO. 146 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-32 AND AMENDMENT NO.142 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY l
SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-280 AND 50-281 l
INTRODUCTION By letter dated February 1, 1990, as supplemented July 30, 1990, the Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the Administrative Controls Section of the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
The major purpose of the changes was to reassign the
-responsibility of the offsite review function from the. Independent / Operational Event Review (10ER) Group to the. Management Safety Review Committee (MSRC).
Other minor changes were proposed to accommodate organizational changes.
Below is a brief discussion and our evaluation of the proposed changes.
The July 30,1WO letter provided additional information requested by the staff regarding the constitution of a quorum and the timeliness of the MSRC meeting
~ minutes.
The additional information did not alter in any way the staff's initial determination of no significant hazards consideration as noticed in the Federal Register on March 21, 1990 (55 FR 10547).
DISCUSSION The= essential element of the proposed TS changes is to utilize a standing committee (MSRC) to perform the responsibilities of the independent review body that were previously. performed by a licensee organizational unit (IDER).
The l
acceptability of these changes was evaluated using the acceptance criteria of the.
-Standard Review Plan for independent review.
The proposed changes are acceptable because ~the qualifications of the MSRC membership and the provisions described for its operations meet-the' criteria for a standing committee that functions as'an independent review body.
Additionally, the licensee organization that was previously responsible for the offsite review function (IDER)'is not being dissolved but will be-used by the MSRC to perform reviews and assessments of-plant activities.
This will further ensure that the independent: review program will collectively have the. experience and competence. required for the review of H
nuclear plant activities.-
The licensee utilized the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.section on.the offsite' safety review and audit function to describe-the responsibilities
~
^
Y, 9010300227 90101e P3R ADOCK 05000280 P
PDC m
a
e.
.t
' +
and activities of the MSRC.
This section will replace TS Section 6.5.2 -
Independent Operational Event Review Group and 6.5.3 - Quality Assurance Audits in the existing TS.
Significant differences between the proposed TS and the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications and their acceptability are discussed below.
Section 6.1.C.2.a Function The' licensee modified the list of areas and activities to be reviewed by the MSRC to make it more site-specific.
This change neither limits nor excludes the MSRC from any area related to nuclear power plant activities and is therefore acceptable.
Section 6.1.c.2.b/f Comgosition/ Quorum The licensee did not list the composition of the MSRC by specific r,osition title but instead described the minimum membership, their qualifiestion requirements and appropriate quorum.
This change is acceptable because the qualifications requirements of the MSRC will meet the acceptance criteria of the Standard Review Plan (SRP).
Also, the general reoutrements contained in these sections capture the essential elements of membership and qualification of the MSRC without reliance on specific position title.
Section-6.1.c.2.0 Reviews The licensee proposed to remove an existing review of the Quality Assurance program and audit results by the 10ER staff.
This requirement was incorporated into the existing TS because the QA Department was responsible for the TS-required audits and provided the necessary interface for the two groups.
This change is acceptable because it is not one of the subjects requiring independent review under the SRP criteria and all TS audits will be performed directly under the L'
cognizance of the MSRC and will provide the required interface with the
. group performing the audit.
Section 6.1.c.2.h Audits The licensee proposed a' change in this section that would allow the TS-required audits that'are now the responsibility of the Quality Assurance Department to be performed under the cognizance of the MSRC.
This change
.is acceptable since the Quality Assurance Department will still normally perform most of the audit activities and their activities should be enhanced:by the direction, expertise, and independent outlook provided by MSRC oversight.
Additionally, this change will bring:the Surry TS into aonformance with the Westinghouse. Standard Technical Specifications.
+
.n addition,. the : licensee proposed other minor changes to the TS in order to reflect organizational changes.
These changes are discussed below.
i t
3) a f
{_. h. y 7,yg
'Mbl ibI g;
"( g _
t
fE 1
o.
l 3
Section 6.1.c.1. Station Nuclear Safety and Operatina Committee (SNSOC)
The licensee proposed two changes that would affect the composition of the SNSOC.
The first was a clarification that the SNSOC Vice Chairman can also function as a member (when the S** SOC Chairman is presiding) and the second was the elimination of the position of Superintendent-Technical Services.
These changes are acceptable because the committee
-will still meet the criteria to provide interdisciplinary review of i
subject matter-as required by the SRP.
J Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 Yitle Changes f
The licensee proposes to nake the following title changes in the above
' listed TS sections:
Senior Vice President-Power to Senior Vice President-Nuclear Vice President-Nuclear to Vice President-Nuclear Operations 1
Superintendent-Health Physics to Superintendent-Radiological Protection These changes are acceptable because they do not alter the qualifica-tions, responsibilities, or relationships established by the Technical Specifications.
Section 6.1.b.3 Training Due to organizational changes, the licensee modified this section to reflect that the Manager-Nuclear Training (instead of the Station l
Manager) is functionally responsible for the training program and that L
relevant industry events are identified by the operating experience program (the Safety Evaluation and Control Staff.was eliminated).
These
' changes do not alter the training requirements contained in this TS section but merely adapt it to utility-specific structure and are thereby acceptable.
EVALUATION In summary, the requested changes are acceptable _because'they do not diminish
'the licensee's technical qualification to engage in licensed activities as.
. required by'10 CFR'Part 50, Section 50.40b, and will increase the licensee's' l-
' senior' management's responsibility and involvement in the review and assessment of. Surry Units 1 and 2 activities.
t p_
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
,1 These-amendments relate to changes,in recordkeeping, reporting or L
administrative procedures or requirements'.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in'10 CFR:
51.22(c)(10).
Pursuant to'10 CFR 51.22(b), no environments 1-impact statement l
or environmental assessment need to-prepared in connection with-the. issuance
?of:these amendments.
Ejf J
[
ik[ s' hoi
(
l fb 4
y
.u, jpW,,
j o.'
o CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: October 18, 1996 Principal Contributor:
M. Case H
i i
4 I
i t
'(
_